CENTRELINK GETS SUED
http://CentrelinkGetsSued.com
A SAGA THAT STARTED HERE @ Hank Jongen HankJongen.com :
INVESTIGATION INTO CENTRELINK'S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS OF PARLIAMENT
PLEASE BOOKMARK THIS WEBSITE, AS IT WILL BE UPDATED AS EVENTS OCCUR
Recently the publisher of this website had the misfortune to experience first hand the Centrelink culture often complained of.
THE CRAIG MELTDOWN
The publisher had to endure false accusations with threatening, grossly intimidating, bullying and aggressive conduct by an employee of Centrelink. The publisher believes that this conduct was an attempt to provoke him into defending himself against imminent violence as he was in fact in fear of imminent violence. Had the publisher physically defended himself, of course he would have been arrested and for certain breached, which is thought to be the motive behind this disgraceful conduct.
The conduct was aggravated by the Centrelink office manager who appeared more concerned at whitewashing the employee conduct, blaming the publisher for it and seemingly making no attempt to discipline the employee.
Accordingly a Judicial Review of Centrelink is to be sought by the publisher in the FEDERAL COURT regarding a whole smorgasbord of facts and allegations against the Department of Human Services trading as Centrelink, ABN: 29 468 422 437. The first step in filing for a Judicial Review, will be filing proceedings for Discovery of the Centrelink security video of the incident as Centrelink has refused to provide it. That is to happen early in the week beginning 24 October 2011 as, under the Court's Accrued Jurisdiction proceedings of Breach of Statutory Duty, Negligence and Misfeasance (by reckless disregard or deliberate misuse of power causing harm) may also be filed.

The prospective respondent (Department of Human Services trading as Centrelink ABN: 29 468 422 437) is required to attend the Federal Court in Brisbane on 2, amended to 9 December 2011 pursuant to the Federal Court Documents below filed in the Federal Court of Australia.


COMMONWEALTH COURTS PORTAL

Documents Filed in the Federal Court / Steps Taken / Events
24/10/2011
FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS FILED
Document Lodged: Originating Application by Prospective Applicant for Order for Discovery - Form 14 - Rule 7.24(1) [Rule 7.23 matter]
File Number: QUD394/2011
File Title: Gordon Craven v Department of Human Services Trading As Centrelink
District Registry: QUEENSLAND REGISTRY - FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Reason for Listing: Directions
Time and date for hearing: 02/12/2011, 09/12/2011 9:30 AM
Place: Court No. 3, Level 7, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts
Building Level 6, 119 North Quay, Brisbane
ORDER SOUGHT (per the Application)
[Pursuant to] : Rule 7.23 for an order that the Department of Human Services trading as Centrelink give discovery to the Prospective Applicant of security footage of the Prospective Applicant’s visit to the Prospective Respondent’s office at Noosaville QLD on Thursday 13 October 2011.
ORIGINATING APPLICATION for DISCOVERY
of VIDEO FOOTAGE
"....At that appointment, I was taken by complete shock and surprise in that I had to endure false accusations with threatening, grossly intimidating, bullying and vigorously aggressive conduct by an employee of the Prospective Respondent in his decision making capacity (as he advised me)..... I believe that the impact, severity and physical activity of the conduct was an attempt (contrary to Commonwealth Public Servants Code of Conduct) to provoke me into losing my self control and defending myself against imminent violence as I did in fact become in fear of imminent violence. I also consider this conduct to be a civil assault upon me....."
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
Documents were faxed and emailed to various contacts of the Prospective Respondent (Centrelink)
25/10/2011
EVENT
Centrelink Noosaville manager Mr. Alan Davidson, telephoned the Prospective Applicant confirming that he had retained the video footage being sought and requested the electronic copy of court documents filed in the Court to be emailed to him. The documents were subsequently emailed. The manager was requested to acknowledge personal service by return email, thus satisfying the Court Rules for Personal Service.
02/11/2011
EVENT
Letter by emai to Mr. Alan Davidson, Centrelink LETTER-2Nov2011.PDF copied to Hank Jongen :
• Further request for acknowledgment of personal service;
• Notice of potential further particulars of aggravated damages;
• Court Notice of change of Court date listing from 2 December 2011 to 9 December 2011.
03/11/2011
STEP
Service has been effected.
According to the COMMONWEALTH COURTS PORTAL, Department of Human Services Trading As Centrelink has filed an Address for Service as, Sparke Helmore, GPO Box 10220, BRISBANE 4000
Lawyers for Department of Human Services Trading As Centrelink are, Sparke Helmore Level 8, 10 Eagle Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
15/11/2011
EVENT
Prior to filing the ORIGINATING APPLICATION for DISCOVERY of VIDEO FOOTAGE, on 14 October 2011 the Applicant had lodged a Freedom of Information request for his Centrelink File and the Video Footage. Despite the apparant simplicity of seeking personal information on oneself, the Dept. of Human Services (DHS) have advised that it requires 60 DAYS to process the request for the following reasons :
the request involves documents of a sensitive nature and will require extensive decision making time
the document retrieval process is complex due to the need for stakeholders to convert the document into an appropriate medium
the decision making process is complex due to the need for third party consultation and consideration of appropriate redactions
Hank Jongen The extension of time [from 30 to 60 days] will allow well-reasoned and better managed decision-making by DHS in this situation.
27/11/2011
EVENT    
Letter to Sparke Helmore requesting full name and address of Centrelink Noosaville employee "Craig" in order to facilitate his proper description as a Respondent in the upcoming Application to the Federal Court, once the current Application for video footage is finalised. sparke27-11-11.PDF
28/11/2011
EVENT      
FOI of VIDEO FOOTAGE REFUSED
FOI COPY OF LETTER

REASON : IT WOULD TAKE 22 DAYS OF COMPUTER TIME TO REDACT 55 MINUTES OF VIDEO FOOTAGE
29/11/2011
STEP       
Subsequent to the notice that the video footage was to be refused, on 29 November the Director of FOI for Human Services (Ms. Kerrie Terry) was emailed a letter requesting further information regarding this astonishing statement made in the digital era of 2011....
"Pursuant to subsection 24AB(3) of the Act, please would you provide full details of the :
(a) format of the video footage;
(b) file extension of the video footage (e.g., .MPEG .AVI)
(c) security coding of the video footage;
(d) name of software that would be used to redact and/or edit the footage;
(e) any other relevant technical details.
"
07/12/2011
STEP       
HEY PRESTO.... after 53 days since the date of FOI application and 2 DAYS before the Federal Court hearing a letter is received that the video camera manufacture has provided software to enable redaction within a reasonable timeframe. LETTER IS HERE
09/12/2011
STEP       
At the hearing on Friday 9 December 2011 Justice Logan was (perhaps understandably) unimpressed that the matter was before the court when the video was to be produced under FOI. As such tricky Centrelink despite initially refusing to confirm that the video even existed and then giving notice of refusal to its access, had successfully hi-jacked the proceedings just 2 days before the hearing.
COURT ORDERS :
The case is adjourned to 16 December 2011 at not before 10.30 am.
The costs of today are reserved.
Commonwealth Courts Portal : https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD394/2011/actions
In effect the judge had provided 7 days to discontinue the proceedings and avoid a costs order.
12/12/2011
DOCUMENT FILED      
Proceedings discontinued with each party bearing their own costs. https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD394/2011/actions
The Applicant now awaits the arrival of the video footage from FOI together with his Centrelink file before filing the substantive matters, i.e. Judicial Review, Misfeasance in Public Office and the Tort of Assault.
Some of the draft pleadings to be filed : CLICK HERE FOR MORE
The First Respondent subjected the Applicant to the further malicious conduct by way of words to the effect or similar meaning that included :
(i) “I will fix you”;
(ii) “Believe me, I can and I will make it my business to fix you”;
(iii) removed his glasses and stated “look into my eyes” several times, stood up walked around his desk towards the Applicant and whilst towering over the Applicant in the immediate and close proximity to the Applicant who was still sitting, repeated the above words and following words 4 or 5 times in a provocative, aggressive and fierce manner at the Applicant’s face, “I will take you on“
16/12/2011
INTERIM COMMENT     
Well well well, it's now Friday 16 December 2011 at 7-20pm. The Centrelink FOI personal file arrived a couple of days ago (with lots of things missing & volumes of duplication), BUT the CCTV VIDEO, or the decision to release it (despite Federal Court proceedings being discontinued in anticipation), has NOT been received, DESPITE Ms. Kerrie Terry Director of FOI for Human Services making a big deal about the statutory timeframe extension to 60 days for the FOI decision/production, which has now expired on 13/12/11 HER LETTER IS HERE
Perhaps one could be forgiven (in the real world) for thinking that there is some sort of conspiracy to conceal evidence and the truth, let's see what happens.....
Is Centrelink fundamentally corrupt ??... a bureaucracy that sets its own laws ??... and covers up its despotic mistakes ??... let's see what happens.....
Stay tuned... the bigger hole they dig.... the harder it is to climb out of.....
21/12/2011
EVENT      
Because I have had no notice of a decision regarding the CCTV VIDEO and the statutory deadline was 13/12/11 it is deemed by legislation to be refused. The ignorant bastards don't even have the decency to let you know of the refusal or provide reasons why. Consequently an appeal has been lodged with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
5/01/2012
EVENT      
RE : "an appeal has been lodged with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner."
Well that seemed to have worked, the video has arrived. Poorest quality video the publisher has ever encountered and it's not from the camera that captured the incident but a camera that partially captured it. It's not worth publishing because it is so crappy, however there were tiny bits of value that confirms the recollection of the publisher, who considers that he has been assaulted and been the the victim of an intentional infliction of emotional distress a further actionable tort together with civil assault. As such it is expected that the video from the relevant camera (from a multitude of cameras) will be produced to the court (under its discovery process) after the publisher files the substantive proceedings, and for actions and relief that includes:
• Declarations
• Orders
• Injunctive Relief
• Misfeasance in Public Office
• Judicial Review of Conduct

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Civil Assault
• Attempted Extrinsic or Collateral Fraud
(cover up)
• Damages / Nominal Damages
• Aggravated Damages
• Exemplary Damages
(to charity)
7/02/2012
COVER UP 
After taking legal advice from the excellent services of the Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House (QPILCH), it was discovered that "CONDUCT" in the context of a Judicial Review, refers specifically to procedures followed by a public servant, rather than the public servant acting like an arsehole, i.e., the Federal Court does not review offensive behavior of a public servant in a purported decision making process. Consequently the remedial procedure being embarked on has been revised to below:
1.
The initial reason for the saga which was started in May 2011 by a Centrelink Complex Assessment Officer (Margaret Heath) in Toowoomba deciding that legitimate business expenses of a business could not be offset against the business income, is now being persued by way of the Centrelink statutory review process which can end up being finalised in the Federal Court by way of appeals. Interestingly, for in excess of 6 months, Centrelink refused to provide the statutory and judicial authority for its decision, however that authority has now been provided by QPILCH and it has now become clear how Centrelink has misconstrued information provided to it in order to make a clearly wrong decision.
2.
Remedy of the offensive conduct by Centrelink public servant "Craig" (as per above THE CRAIG MELTDOWN) which was sparked by a simple request for progress of the provision of legal authority for the above decision at 1, is being commenced by way of the statutory pre-court procedures (prior to filing in the District Court of Queensland) as required by the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld).
3.
Since it is also contended that the Centrelink Office Manager (Alan Davidson) at Noosaville, inititated a cover up of the "Craig" incident by blaming the Applicant (publisher) and making a decision without basis affecting the Applicant, that decision is now also the subject of the Centrelink statutory review process which can also end up being finalised in the Federal Court by way of appeals.
4.
As the statutory pre-court procedure requires the full name and address of the "person that caused the incident", inquiries have been made to Centrelink to ascertain the full name and address of the offensive public servant currently known as "Craig", (AKA NumbNuts).
12/03/2012
UPDATE OF COVER UP   
Well as usual there is the law that the peasants have to obey, which the bureaucrats can ignore with impunity.

An FOI application was filed to find the correct name and address of Craig NumbNuts. A letter dated 8 Feb 2012 from Centrelink (signed for K. Terry) acknowledged receipt of the application on 6 Feb 2012 stating that the statutory period of 30 days began on 6 Feb 2012.
GIVING YOU OPTIONS

It is now 12 March 2012 and no further correspondence has been received. ONCE AGAIN the ignorant bastards contravene Commonwealth legislation and don't even have the common decency to let you know what is going on.

So... its back to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to lodge a complaint.

It just galls me to see this level of cultural belligerence from the huge Centrelink bureaucracy that would blame their customers for bringing this country down, when they themselves suck the life out of it with their overpaid and unproductive ineptitude and cover-ups. The hindrance to getting to the truth could almost be described as perverting the course of justice, however getting a judge to agree is a tall mountain to climb.
16/03/2012
UPDATE OF COVER UP    
A letter received today 16/03/2012 from Centrelink (8 days after the FOI statutory period of 30 days had ended), essentially says that Centrelink has given itself and extended period of time to process the FOI request which is now 60 days instead of 30 days. The reason given it that Centrelink has to consult with its employee Craig NumbNuts to see if he objects to his name and address being released. Oh yes.... you bet.... Centrelink needs all of the 60 days to do that!!!
11/04/2012
UPDATE OF COVER UP     
Well well after 60 days of FOI bullshit...... Mr. Craig Numbnuts must have decided that he objects to having his name and address being released to me, when as a Centrelink public servant he threatened me at Noosaville by uttering the following words into my face :
• “I will fix you”;
• “Believe me, I can and I will make it my business to fix you”

The excuse provided by Department of Human Services FOI (Surfers Paradise Qld branch, AKA Centrelink), is that their employee would suffer a substantial adverse effect on his management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth.
EDITORS NOTE : That's why the FOI was made... to reign in this prick!!
It seems that Mr. Numbnuts doesn't actually have any balls at all... to go numb.
14/06/2012
documents filed / step / event      

It appears NumbNuts has been allowed by Centrelink to go ferel in his pursuit of his threat to "make it his business to fix me".

Within the recent period of the last 45 days there has been 4 (four) serial requests for business documents to be provided to Centrelink which are simply duplications of the original documents already supplied + serial notices that Centrelink have NOT recieved the documents + the usual threat of disconnection if the documents are not supplied.

Well Centrelink & others.... let me tell you though this forum, that you are digging a huge hole that I hope to make sure that YOU can never climb out of!!

THE Form 1 (Part 1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) is to be lodged within the next few days. You (Centrelink. the Secretary and NumbNuts) are required by the legislation to respond (as much as you may dislike that prospect), from which it will be decided whether you are to provide relief, otherwise the matter is to proceed to a Queensland a Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
28/06/2012
DOCUMENTS SERVED - CRAIG'S ATTEMPT TO AVOID SERVICE
Having the first part of the NOTICE OF CLAIM being completed, today was the day to serve it on the Respondents. Armed with the NOTICE OF CLAIM and a covering letter to GRAIG C/- the Manager (as I did not think CRAIG would be there), I proceeded to Centrelink Noosaville. On arrival at the Centrelink office there was a large queue. A person I recognised as CRAIG NumbNuts was sitting right down the rear of the office. I walked up to him and loudly said “Craig” to which he looked at me and replied NO, (he did not have his GRAIG badge on) I then said, “you are not Craig?” to which he again replied NO. The Centrelink staff started to converge telling me to get out to the front counter. I pointed to CRAIG and said to them "is this CRAIG" to which there was no answer. Then a person who I recognised as the Office Manager arrived to assist me to leave, I gave the original NOTICE OF CLAIM together with the covering letter to him and said to him “you are served”.
29/07/2012
COMCOVER RESPONDS - COMCOVER CAN'T COUNT
Letter from Comcover wrongly alleging non-compliance with a 9 month statutory period for lodging a claim + claiming consequential prejudice.
Letter of Claimant's response.
24/08/2012
COMCOVER CAN'T CUT IT
Complainant lodges further and better particulars of claim as required by Comcover, whilst Comcover fails to respond to previous correspondence from complainant per 29/07/2012 above.
PRIVATE
Same day letter in response to further & better particulars.... from Comcover lawyers (Ashley Jones partner at NORTON ROSE AUSTRALIA).
date
documents filed / step / event      
 

QUESTIONS TO BE RAISED :
1. Does Centrelink provoke breaching by -
(a)
Disgraceful conduct similar to above?
(b)
Failing to send appointment letters or sending letters to arrive on the day of the appointment?
(c)
Forcing customers to re-visit the same Job Service Provider when there has been a clear breakdown in working relationship, or where a complaint has been made against the Provider for breach of the Code of Practice or Service Guarantee?
(d)
Requiring the customer to comply with useless, inept, futile, degrading, non-employment goal or oppressive conditions to receive a continuing payment.
(e)
Clearly inept, belligerent, antagonistic or unhelpful decision making?
(f)
Making arbitrary decisions seemingly unsupported by legislation (Ultra vires) or judicial decision, and then refusing to provide details of the legislation or judicial decision?
(g)
Simple Simon attitudes by Authorised Review Officer (ARO) reviews, where the ARO is unable to understand and provides a NumbNuts response to what you are complaining about.
(h)
Any of the conduct encompassed by this legislation ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 6 in the circumstances required by the Commonwealth Public Servants Code of Conduct?
SUBMIT YOUR EXPERIENCES HERE
2. Do employees of Centrelink have breaching competitions? (e.g. prizes for issuing the most breaches) SUBMIT YOUR EXPERIENCES HERE
3. Does Centrelink raise debts illegally by falsely labeling customers as welfare cheats? SUBMIT YOUR EXPERIENCES HERE

LINKS :
CENTRELINK EXPERIENCES from DSPoverseas
Absolute pity they are all not like Sue, Sue a champion of service delivery
Prompted by thousands of complaints to his office, the Ombudsman has taken a detailed look and identified "systemic weaknesses", including Centrelink not telling clients whether they had their benefits cut or even if they owe money..... many thousands of Centrelink clients who've complained of arbitrary withdrawal of benefits, or imposition of conditions or changes or reporting requirements - all of which have proved to be invalid. FULL ABC STORY HERE
Centrelink’s internal review system fell short of being “legally sound, efficient and effective.... WELFARE RIGHTS MEDIA RELEASE | Centrelink’s review system cops a scathing review
Typical example of Centrelink's dishonest, idiotic & belligerent culture resulting in a negligent (perhaps malicious) unwarranted criminal prosecution and how the Ombudsman's blundering can make things worse.
BEWARE HONESTY - BY : Ian Cunliffe, solicitor
SOURCE : The Rationalist Society of Australia
High Court pulls Centrelink into line regarding its inept interpetation of the law - Malgorzata Poniatowska may be civilly liable but NOT criminally liable
A Fair-Trading.com.au publication